Calvin Synod Herald, 1989 (89. évfolyam, 1-2. szám)

1989-09-01 / 2. szám

CALVIN SYNOD HERALD

Now that the Fifty First Annual Meeting of the Calvin Synod is over, it is perhaps permissible to subject some of its proceedings to a critical but compassionate evaluation. Our Reformed ancestors rightfully assumed and correctly practiced the idea that nothing is perfect in this world not even the Church and everything can and should be improved on the basis of better Scriptural and practical understandings. They called themselves “Reformed” to identify with the perpetual need for change and betterment of lifes’ lot. To them, the Church, above all other institutions, required a continuous updating and correction. Their beliefs that the Church needs to be always in the process of Reformation (Ecclesia Semper reformanda debet) became a rallying call through the centuries, but this revolutionary concept was always supplemented with the sobering statement: “if anyone will teach us better from the Word of God we will thankfully yield to it” (Introduction: Second Helvetic Confession) This qualification certainly permits and even encourages change in the Church yet it assumes self discipline, and a Biblical basis, from those who propose such change.

With the above in mind let us focus on one particular practice of our collective life: the bi-annual selection of our chief executive officer the Bishop. Due to historical and ecclesiastical traditions in our Mother Church in Hungary we are the only Conference within the family of the United Church of Christ which identifies its Conference Minister as “Bishop”. We are also the one that assigns only two years of tenure to the position hence exposing ourselves to a biannual election shock, which practice in a small community like ours is neither wise nor efficient. We do not know for certain the original

— 5 -Kálvin jelképe. Calvin’s Emblem

logic and justification of such a limitation. It is true that the office holder can run one more two year term, assuming that he or she will be re-elected, and can have some sense of continuity but the real possibility of fragmentation is undeniable. It is harmful and degrading when a competent Bishop’s two consecutive terms should artificially be interrupted by someone simply because of the provisions of our By-Laws.

This practice of rapid turnover has caused severe discontinuity between administrations. It has prevented effective long term planning and execution. It has undermined the efficiency of the Calvin Synod as an administrative body, and certainly has lowered the standard one would expect from a chief executive. The time frame between two elections is so short that it could keep our fellowship in a permanent state of excitement when feelings get hurt, unnecessary blocks emerge, and uncertainty paralyzes the office holders. Those who do not wish the best for us insist that we keep this self inflicting practice so all of us will have a turn as Bishop. This is certainly an extreme opinion. However a re-evaluation and changing of this tradition would result in a more efficient administrative practice than the one we have at the present time.

Additionally, there is no other area ir. our Synod’s life which requires more immediate attention and change than the posture we assume as we elect the Bishop from among us. We have no help or guidance in the By-Laws or in our Constitution regarding this important act. It has always been relegated as last minute business at the Annual Meeting. In a hurried, exited atmosphere the spirit of dividing competition takes over which effectively voids the solemnity and seriousness of the occasion. We, the people of the Bible, do

not follow, even in a rudimentary way, the Scriptural instructions. In the Book of Acts, Chapter 1:20-26, a bishop is being elected (See the King James version) and to complicate the situation not one but two candidates are presented. The most striking element of this act is that the electors prayed before “they gave forth their lots.” (This particular year prayer and Bible reading before the election was officially included in our Agenda but, unfortunately, we paid no attention to it.) As far as the casting of vote is concerned, our Eastern Orthodox Christian brothers still use this Apostolic method; namely, they place the name of the candidates in a vessel and after much prayer and meditation they pull out one. This way they believe God is the one who directs the election. Perhaps we do not need to return to such a practice, however Scriptural it might be, but we could learn from the practice of our Mother Church or the Hungarian Reformed Church in America where the local congregations through their Consistories make the final vote. Such a method permits a calm evaluation of the candidates’ competence, allows time to consider and ponder, and finally establishes a closer emotional and perhaps spiritual tie between the future Bishop and a particular local Church because more people are involved in the election process. Currently our voting delegates, especially the new ones, have little opportunity to make an informed decision based on more than impromptu, subjective impressions.

Ecclesia Semper Reformanda! This short proposal has only one aim, namely, to stimulate discussion among us on an issue that involves all of us. Certainly the Calvin Synod Herald is a good place to air our opinions. May our readers respond to these suggestions in reasoned articles and then let us do what we confess “if someone will teach us better”!

László M. Medyesy

________ REFORMÁTUSOK LAPJA

Endre Ady:

To My Countrymen in America

My countrymen, you whom our common curse Has taken from us and has rent afar, Perhaps too often in your thoughts we are.

Ah, nathlcss, Magyar life is overwhelmed, And from the deluge they alone emerge Whom distant shores from present peril urge.

You far-off Magyars, how I envy you!

At home already all by us is lost;

You, happy folk, are far from ruin tossed.

Ecclesia Semper Reformanda!

A Luther rózsa. Luther's' Rose.